Ottawa is under pressure to accept new terms on auto trade and dispute settlement rules after the United States and Mexico agreed on Monday to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland rejoins the year-long talks following a hiatus of several weeks as the United States and Mexico ironed out outstanding bilateral disagreements in the renegotiation of the 24-year-old accord.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on Tuesday that he believed the United States could also reach a trade deal with Canada this week.
-----------
Ottawa is under pressure to accept new terms on auto trade and dispute settlement rules after the United States and Mexico agreed on Monday to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland rejoins the year-long talks following a hiatus of several weeks as the United States and Mexico ironed out outstanding bilateral disagreements in the renegotiation of the 24-year-old accord.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on Tuesday that he believed the United States could also reach a trade deal with Canada this week.
-----------
Bwahahahaha
You missed a paragraph.
Quote:A spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, who is due to arrive in Washington on Tuesday for the talks, said Canada would only sign a new agreement that is good for the country.
And I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. As with NK, nothing is signed yet. And now we're talking about resuming military exercises with SK.
Ottawa is under pressure to accept new terms on auto trade and dispute settlement rules after the United States and Mexico agreed on Monday to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland rejoins the year-long talks following a hiatus of several weeks as the United States and Mexico ironed out outstanding bilateral disagreements in the renegotiation of the 24-year-old accord.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on Tuesday that he believed the United States could also reach a trade deal with Canada this week.
-----------
Bwahahahaha
You missed a paragraph.
Quote:A spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, who is due to arrive in Washington on Tuesday for the talks, said Canada would only sign a new agreement that is good for the country.
And I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. As with NK, nothing is signed yet. And now we're talking about resuming military exercises with SK.
Watch what happens to their economy for every day that goes by and they dont sign on the line.
I remember when the mere mention of NAFTA would get liberals foaming at the mouth, now they seem to think anyone who wants to get rid of it or re-work it is dangerous. Funny change, that.
Ottawa is under pressure to accept new terms on auto trade and dispute settlement rules after the United States and Mexico agreed on Monday to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland rejoins the year-long talks following a hiatus of several weeks as the United States and Mexico ironed out outstanding bilateral disagreements in the renegotiation of the 24-year-old accord.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on Tuesday that he believed the United States could also reach a trade deal with Canada this week.
-----------
Bwahahahaha
You missed a paragraph.
Quote:A spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, who is due to arrive in Washington on Tuesday for the talks, said Canada would only sign a new agreement that is good for the country.
And I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. As with NK, nothing is signed yet. And now we're talking about resuming military exercises with SK.
You are truly locked into the DNC hive mind. Lol.
North Korea. Lmao. Thats your equivalent? Predictable
Sad. Bigly.
(This post was last modified: 08-28-2018 02:09 PM by shere khan.)
Ottawa is under pressure to accept new terms on auto trade and dispute settlement rules after the United States and Mexico agreed on Monday to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland rejoins the year-long talks following a hiatus of several weeks as the United States and Mexico ironed out outstanding bilateral disagreements in the renegotiation of the 24-year-old accord.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on Tuesday that he believed the United States could also reach a trade deal with Canada this week.
-----------
Bwahahahaha
You missed a paragraph.
Quote:A spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, who is due to arrive in Washington on Tuesday for the talks, said Canada would only sign a new agreement that is good for the country.
And I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. As with NK, nothing is signed yet. And now we're talking about resuming military exercises with SK.
Yeah, they need to sign a deal that's good for our country.
Ottawa is under pressure to accept new terms on auto trade and dispute settlement rules after the United States and Mexico agreed on Monday to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland rejoins the year-long talks following a hiatus of several weeks as the United States and Mexico ironed out outstanding bilateral disagreements in the renegotiation of the 24-year-old accord.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on Tuesday that he believed the United States could also reach a trade deal with Canada this week.
-----------
Bwahahahaha
BUT MUH TRADE WAAAAARRRRR!!!
Rather astounding what a seasoned business man can knock out verse another mealy mouthed career Pol.
Of course we hold all the cards, always have. Why we haven’t leveraged that before now is mystifying.
(08-28-2018 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Take much of this with a grain of salt as it's from a DK writer, but it makes some good points that perhaps you guys can expand upon.
What exactly is different from NAFTA here and is this just really more akin to the TPP? Both things you probably professed not to like.
(08-28-2018 02:05 PM)EigenEagle Wrote: I remember when the mere mention of NAFTA would get liberals foaming at the mouth, now they seem to think anyone who wants to get rid of it or re-work it is dangerous. Funny change, that.
Yup.
They used to claim to worry about certain things like the middle class, “working” folk (we all work, for the most part, but...) the union MEMBERS not just the thugs at the top etc.
Now? It’s hollyweird and pop stars, and the unemployed or those they can keep in entitlement programs.
Funny how socialism works like that.
(This post was last modified: 08-28-2018 03:01 PM by JMUDunk.)
Ottawa is under pressure to accept new terms on auto trade and dispute settlement rules after the United States and Mexico agreed on Monday to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland rejoins the year-long talks following a hiatus of several weeks as the United States and Mexico ironed out outstanding bilateral disagreements in the renegotiation of the 24-year-old accord.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on Tuesday that he believed the United States could also reach a trade deal with Canada this week.
-----------
Bwahahahaha
You missed a paragraph.
Quote:A spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, who is due to arrive in Washington on Tuesday for the talks, said Canada would only sign a new agreement that is good for the country.
And I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. As with NK, nothing is signed yet. And now we're talking about resuming military exercises with SK.
Here's the thing.
Canada needs this agreement WAY more than we do. It's in their best interests to renegotiate and come to a deal. A "trade war" with the United States will hurt their economy more than it will ours.
Not to mention, where will Trudeau get his fake eyebrows if there's a trade dispute?
RWT,
first, it appears that the article was written by someone who doesn't understand international economics... especially in that things don't have to be 'new' to be 'better'.
Getting exercise and eating right are both good things, but if you try and do them at the same time, you'll likely vomit, which isn't good and defeats both 'good' things... not a great analogy, but it should be obvious that LITTLE in the world today is actually new... it is mostly just things applied to different situations (Nafta vs tpp) or in a different combination.
It seems it was written with the intent of finding things wrong with every piece and not looking at the combination of things. He laments the wall and talks about this being potentially good for Mexican workers and then ignores that things that are good for Mexican workers lessens the attractiveness of risking your life for a job in the US. It talks about how this increase in NA content may not come to the US, but ignore that it also isn't likely to come AT THE EXPENSE of the US, but instead at the expense of likely China... because moving jobs to Mexico from the US is already possible... and the higher wages makes it more likely that the TRULY cheap products will still come from China, the 'middle' ground (stuff produced by $16/hr labor) will come from Mexico, and the higher value stuff will come from the US.
I'm not saying the deal is perfect by any means... and while we can have opinions, I don't think any of us have enough information to really evaluate it, and I feel 100% confident that this author doesn't..... what I'm saying is that it DOES seem to take a 'whole pie' approach towards the problem and not simply seem to be 10 slices of a pie, all of which were negotiated independently (typical when done by politicians and not business people).
Alluding to the old analogy about the camel being a horse designed by a committee, this isn't a camel... It's a horse. It may not be a thoroughbred, but it's not a camel.
(This post was last modified: 08-28-2018 03:21 PM by Hambone10.)
(08-28-2018 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Take much of this with a grain of salt as it's from a DK writer, but it makes some good points that perhaps you guys can expand upon.
What exactly is different from NAFTA here and is this just really more akin to the TPP? Both things you probably professed not to like.
STFU. I clearly mentioned it was from a Daily Kos writer. In case you haven't quite figured out this internet thing, if you hover over a link, it will tell you at the bottom of the screen where it is going.
(08-28-2018 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Take much of this with a grain of salt as it's from a DK writer, but it makes some good points that perhaps you guys can expand upon.
What exactly is different from NAFTA here and is this just really more akin to the TPP? Both things you probably professed not to like.
STFU. I clearly mentioned it was from a Daily Kos writer. In case you haven't quite figured out this internet thing, if you hover over a link, it will tell you at the bottom of the screen where it is going.
Finally an original thought. Well not exactly original because this is a common approach for you but at least you aren't parroting leftist propaganda.
![[Image: 200630.jpg]](https://i.imgflip.com/200630.jpg)
![[Image: 5a8fe95daae6051d008b4592-960-644.jpg]](https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a8fe95daae6051d008b4592-960-644.jpg)
![[Image: canadian-trade-team1.jpg]](https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/canadian-trade-team1.jpg)
